3 ms·

The rich are... rich. They can move at any time, anywhere. There will always be a country that will receive them with open arms. Income redistribution will n

The rich are... rich. They can move at any time, anywhere. There will always be a country that will receive them with open arms. Income redistribution will never happen.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Jtsummers 2y ago
Many of the countries they might want to move to have higher tax rates than the US. And, until recently, the US probably had the most significant global clout to back their business ventures with.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  You’re assuming that if the US tried a serious wealth distribution tax hike, a country like China, India, South Korea, Japan, you name it, would not immediately offer sweetheart deals. The UK is currently learning this the hard way relative to the US with talent fleeing.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    ahoka wrote: > Maybe stop giving tax cuts to rich people Nor did I write anything about "significant tax hikes". How do you get from these comments to significant tax hikes? Not giving tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans and not increasing our deficit further is not the same thing as a significant tax hike. If you cannot distinguish these two things, I don't know how any productive conversation could ever be had here. And if billionaires choose to leave the US to avoid these non tax-hikes, that's their choice. But most countries they'd presently opt for do tax higher than the US does.
oblio 2y ago
With this attitude you should probably pack up the US and call it a day. 1. Inequality has been constantly decreasing for most of the 20th century, worldwide. 2. Income redistribution has happened multiple times throughout history, and you can argue about the process and also about the results but it has happened repeatedly (French Revolution, Communist Revolution in Russia and all associated revolutions and coups, etc, etc).
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  I don’t think that citing the Russian revolution is the best argument you have. That wealth redistribution attempt took 30 million lives. That’s probably one of the best arguments why we should absolutely not kill the golden geese.
  - oblio 2y ago
    It would be nice if you would read that paragraph again :-)
- 29athrowaway 2y ago
  The French revolution was a complete mess that ended in a tyranny (Napoleon). The Communist revolution initiated a sequence of events that make communism the #1 cause of death ever. From purges, to famine, wars... Deng Xiaoping's communism is a completely different thing.
  - oblio 2y ago
    > The French revolution was a complete mess that ended in a tyranny (Napoleon). Umm... I see that you were schooled in the Anglo-American tradition (classical Conservative, I guess Edmund Burke?). Let me expand on that... the French Revolution was a mess, like any revolution, that's true. A mess that: - shattered MANY legal abuses (primarily stemming from divine right, feudalism, etc) in a lot of Europe, in about 3 major shocks (the initial one which led to the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, then 1848, then slowly to the abolition of any feudal remains around 1918) - greatly expanded personal and collective freedoms in Europe, freedoms that weren't abolished even by the "tyranny" - served as a model for a better society for many oppressed countries and regions in Europe (I come from one, Romania) And it did not end in a tyranny. It went through mass executions, lead to an absolutist regime, back to a monarchy, then back to a democracy, then back to a monarchy, and then finally back to a democracy, for good. All of that was started and made possible by the French Revolution. > The Communist revolution initiated a sequence of events that make communism the #1 cause of death ever. From purges, to famine, wars... That's only if you look at global Communism like a single phenomenon and you consider say, monarchy, as a set of disjointed ideologies. Communism also brought great equality in countries that were some of the most unequal and abusive on the planet, it greatly accelerated women's rights to the point to this day, Eastern Europe (for example) has more equal political representation and more women in STEM than Western Europe. You could argue that fear of Communism also led the West to adopt policies such as high taxes on high earners, that led to more equality during the post war era. Look at what's happening now when Communism is basically gone for good. The US is falling back into a Gilded Era.

The rich are... rich. They can move at any time, anywhere. There will always be a country that will receive them with open arms. Income redistribution will never happen.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Jtsummers 2y ago

Many of the countries they might want to move to have higher tax rates than the US. And, until recently, the US probably had the most significant global clout to back their business ventures with.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
You’re assuming that if the US tried a serious wealth distribution tax hike, a country like China, India, South Korea, Japan, you name it, would not immediately offer sweetheart deals. The UK is currently learning this the hard way relative to the US with talent fleeing.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  ahoka wrote: > Maybe stop giving tax cuts to rich people Nor did I write anything about "significant tax hikes". How do you get from these comments to significant tax hikes? Not giving tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans and not increasing our deficit further is not the same thing as a significant tax hike. If you cannot distinguish these two things, I don't know how any productive conversation could ever be had here. And if billionaires choose to leave the US to avoid these non tax-hikes, that's their choice. But most countries they'd presently opt for do tax higher than the US does.

oblio 2y ago

With this attitude you should probably pack up the US and call it a day. 1. Inequality has been constantly decreasing for most of the 20th century, worldwide. 2. Income redistribution has happened multiple times throughout history, and you can argue about the process and also about the results but it has happened repeatedly (French Revolution, Communist Revolution in Russia and all associated revolutions and coups, etc, etc).

gjsman-1000 2y ago
I don’t think that citing the Russian revolution is the best argument you have. That wealth redistribution attempt took 30 million lives. That’s probably one of the best arguments why we should absolutely not kill the golden geese.
- oblio 2y ago
  It would be nice if you would read that paragraph again :-)
29athrowaway 2y ago
The French revolution was a complete mess that ended in a tyranny (Napoleon). The Communist revolution initiated a sequence of events that make communism the #1 cause of death ever. From purges, to famine, wars... Deng Xiaoping's communism is a completely different thing.
- oblio 2y ago
  > The French revolution was a complete mess that ended in a tyranny (Napoleon). Umm... I see that you were schooled in the Anglo-American tradition (classical Conservative, I guess Edmund Burke?). Let me expand on that... the French Revolution was a mess, like any revolution, that's true. A mess that: - shattered MANY legal abuses (primarily stemming from divine right, feudalism, etc) in a lot of Europe, in about 3 major shocks (the initial one which led to the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, then 1848, then slowly to the abolition of any feudal remains around 1918) - greatly expanded personal and collective freedoms in Europe, freedoms that weren't abolished even by the "tyranny" - served as a model for a better society for many oppressed countries and regions in Europe (I come from one, Romania) And it did not end in a tyranny. It went through mass executions, lead to an absolutist regime, back to a monarchy, then back to a democracy, then back to a monarchy, and then finally back to a democracy, for good. All of that was started and made possible by the French Revolution. > The Communist revolution initiated a sequence of events that make communism the #1 cause of death ever. From purges, to famine, wars... That's only if you look at global Communism like a single phenomenon and you consider say, monarchy, as a set of disjointed ideologies. Communism also brought great equality in countries that were some of the most unequal and abusive on the planet, it greatly accelerated women's rights to the point to this day, Eastern Europe (for example) has more equal political representation and more women in STEM than Western Europe. You could argue that fear of Communism also led the West to adopt policies such as high taxes on high earners, that led to more equality during the post war era. Look at what's happening now when Communism is basically gone for good. The US is falling back into a Gilded Era.